Now I'm hearing rumours of injuries with the so called "safe cups". What's that number in relation to the number in use? Maybe it's only a certain type, I don't know. Before we go down that road, I'd like some evidence we wouldn't just simply be changing the colour of the horse. Too often what we perceive to be, is not what facts really show us.

The rule book does not state what material the stand is made of - the book does state the jump bar can only be made of PVC, plastic or wood. I realize NADAC is always looking for ways to increase safety for the dog, but would be surprised if they change this rule any time soon.

NADAC has always advocated for the safety of the dogs. And I'm sure that if a certain kind of jump had been involved in injuring them, it would have been phased out long ago. Rumors are not a great reason to make changes.

It is just my opinion, but in other venues the course often has the dog twist around, back and through jumps at various angles so a dog is more exposed to possible danger of banging into the cups and the side of a jump. For that type of path it makes a whole lot of sense that venues with that type of path require break away jumps. NADAC has always been and will be concerned about safety of the dogs, and yes anything can happen at any time, but the nature of a NADAC course makes that type of issue an extremely rare issue. The closest maneuver in NADAC of a path wrapping around the post of an obstacle is an occasional wrap and you may have noticed if that occurs it is with a hoop.

I agree with Roger. Other venues have created course designs that make the jump approaches more susceptible to the dog hitting the stanchion. NADAC course design does not permit such approaches, and as such, does not have the likelihood of a dog injuring itself on a jump stanchion/cup. It is the course design that causes the obstacle to be more dangerous than it should be. If you are asking for a dog to wrap and take the jump from the back side, you are no t giving it a logical or practical approach to that jump. This is not a sequence you would see in NADAC, but because other venues have incorporated such maneuvers, it makes the jump more dangerous, thus these venues have adopted mandatory 3 piece jumps, etc. That is a product of course design, and NOT a product of jumps being unsafe.

I agree with everyone who has been saying that NADAC's course design doesn't usually require dogs to do unsafe performances of obstacle. But, knowing some handlers and some dogs, they create their own unsafe performances. Sometimes it's how handlers set up the performance of the obstacle for their dogs. Sometimes it's the level of adrenaline that the handler has encouraged in their dog that doesn't allow for clear thinking on the dog's part. When I've seen a dog get hung up or crash into a jump standard, it's been because of one (or both combined) of those issues. Neither of these are the fault of the organizing body, the course design or the judge. Dogs who have their head together, good eyesight, physically capable and are given the opportunity will complete the obstacle without hurting themselves.

To me, it's not an obstacle problem, it's a handling problem. But, maybe that's just a "from where I sit" problem!

Hopefully, NADAC doesn't require clubs to purchase all new jumps - like Richard, I'd worry for the clubs...